Dofs Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Lannisters are Andals. The Andals took over all the kingdoms save the North. Maybe you meant that Lann the Clever being a First Man is a retcon? That was retconned in WOIAF. Andals never conquered Westerlands, the same Lannisters that ruled Westerlands before Andal invasion ruled it after it and the marriage that made Lannisters part Andal had nothing to do with the invasion - it happened long after Andals settled in the Westerlands and was a result of inheritance laws and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 IMO the Bashir detail was too much of a whopper of a detail to introduce so late. In contrast the Cersei/Rhaegar detail does build on Book 1 details about Tywin turning on Aerys.Maggy is a bit cheesy, but I agree, making Lannisters First Men is blatant ret conning, hadn't noticed that. Maybe we can pin that one on Elio ;) A moment, please. Making Lannisters First Men... in which book? There's "A Game of Thrones", establishing them as descendants of (legendary) Lann the Clever from the Age of Heroes, the Westerlands' Bran the Builder. Most recently, there's TWOIAF, and its narrator's speculations as who Lann the Clever might have been (Some say he was an Andal adventurer from across the narrow sea, though this was millennia before the coming of the Andals to Westeros). So, where is it said that the Lannisters are First Men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 He isn't given entire control. And he did respond to Robb's banners. He may have always had the treachery in mind, but if the Stark cause was more successful with a good foreseeable outcome he never would have betrayed. Neither explains why Ned's alleged distrust of Roose Bolton is never even brought up. By anyone. And Cat doesn't spare it a single thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Army numbers were somewhat retconned. Dorne lost 20,000 men while the North gained as much between 2000 and 2011. These original numbers were given almost entirely outside the books though, so it's more filling in some blanks inside the books themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Neither explains why Ned's alleged distrust of Roose Bolton is never even brought up. By anyone. And Cat doesn't spare it a single thought. She warns him of all his bannermen and lords and seeing them as friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 making Lannisters First Men is blatant ret conning, hadn't noticed that. Maybe we can pin that one on Elio ;) That being said, this retcon fixed one problem that was present with the Lannisters - why would an Andal House be named after a First Man hero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaemon the Glorious Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The whole concept of "No man is as accursed as the kinslayer" could be a bit of a retcon. Killing a family member is a horrible crime, sure, but during the earlier book it never seemed to be this completely unforgivable act that could never be justified, no matter the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The whole concept of "No man is as accursed as the kinslayer" could be a bit of a retcon. Killing a family member is a horrible crime, sure, but during the earlier book it never seemed to be this completely unforgivable act that could never be justified, no matter the circumstances. Because we didn't have any early kinslaying acts. The first is Stannis, and look how many people on here dispute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Tyrion's gymnastic athleticism the first time we meet him never comes up again. George admitted that it was a mistake as back then he didnot know the handicaps of dwarfism and such movements were impossible for dwarfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The whole concept of "No man is as accursed as the kinslayer" could be a bit of a retcon. Killing a family member is a horrible crime, sure, but during the earlier book it never seemed to be this completely unforgivable act that could never be justified, no matter the circumstances. That didn't really change. And this "no man is so accursed as the kinslayer" mantra was said once by Rickard Karstark facing Robb's axe, once Davos Seaworth trying everything he could think of to save Edric Storm's life, and constantly by Tyrion fueling his pity party in "Dance". But all in all, Walder Frey's crime gets more flak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Because we didn't have any early kinslaying acts. The first is Stannis, and look how many people on here dispute that. So Dany just watching her brothers brain get melted by gold doesn't count. Don't get me wrong, Viserys was a horrible man and totally had it coming, but it still counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 George admitted that it was a mistake as back then he didnot know the handicaps of dwarfism and such movements were impossible for dwarfs. George tried to use a flashback in Dance to fix this. It still doesn't make much sense though I will admit. Renly's eye color changing from blue to green in a mistake as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So Dany just watching her brothers brain get melted by gold doesn't count. Yes, you're right. It doesn't count. It was not her that did it, and she could not prevent it even if she tried. That she didn't try does not make it kinslaying. Why try and stop something that thousands of khals were definitely going to make happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So Dany just watching her brothers brain get melted by gold doesn't count. Don't get me wrong, Viserys was a horrible man and totally had it coming, but it still counts. Pretty sure that "not actively preventing your kin from getting themselves stupidly killed by threatening your life" is not "kinslaying" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Yes, you're right. It doesn't count. It was not her that did it, and she could not prevent it even if she tried. That she didn't try does not make it kinslaying. Why try and stop something that thousands of khals were definitely going to make happen? because he's the last living member of your family still alive, but that's totally not important, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tommen Baratheon Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So Dany just watching her brothers brain get melted by gold doesn't count. Don't get me wrong, Viserys was a horrible man and totally had it coming, but it still counts. I'd argue that watching and not doing anything doesn't really constitute kinslaying. Also, the whole "no man is as accursed as a kinslayer" stuff is Westeros-centric, and Dany is culturally like Pentoshi and Dothraki. She could probably care less about the faith of the seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 A moment, please. Making Lannisters First Men... in which book? There's "A Game of Thrones", establishing them as descendants of (legendary) Lann the Clever from the Age of Heroes, the Westerlands' Bran the Builder. Most recently, there's TWOIAF, and its narrator's speculations as who Lann the Clever might have been (Some say he was an Andal adventurer from across the narrow sea, though this was millennia before the coming of the Andals to Westeros). So, where is it said that the Lannisters are First Men?Lann being an Andal is just a speculation of some based on nothing and it is doubtful anyway that he was an Andal. The House that he established was obviously a First Man House. The thing is, before WOIAF it was said that the current House Lannister was established by Andal adventurers who conquered Westerlands and by Andal king marrying a female descendant of Lann the Clever. After WOIAF it was all changed. The Andals didn't conquer Westerlands and establish the current House Lannister - it is now the same house that was founded by Lann, thus, historically a First Man house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 because he's the last living member of your family still alive, but that's totally not important, lol The last living member who had just threatened to give her a forced abortion with a sword. She didn't owe him help. The taboo is against kinslayers, not kin ignoring. Pretty sure that "not actively preventing your kin from getting themselves stupidly killed by threatening your life" is not "kinslaying" I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The last living member who had just threatened to give her a forced abortion with a sword. She didn't owe him help. The taboo is against kinslayers, not kin ignoring. I agree. I love the hypocrisy in "not saving someone" and "killing them". I mean this has Batman Begins ending written all over it, lol Doesn't matter if she had good reason, she allowed her brother to be murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I love the hypocrisy in "not saving someone" and "killing them". I mean this has Batman Begins ending written all over it, lol Where's the hypocrisy? She could not have saved him if she tried, so she didn't try, but Viserys also gave her good reason not to try. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.